On Oct 28, 12:27*pm, news wrote:
In article , 'Mike'
writes

I have a Fuji 6 Megs which slips into my shirt pocket when we are cruising

I guess I'm probably the only one that got a very unpleasant image from
that sentence...

--
regards * andyw

The idea of a 75 yr old cruising between the public toilets of the IOW
is not that nice a thing to think about............lol

"Steerpike" wrote in message
...
On Oct 28, 12:27 pm, news wrote:
In article , 'Mike'
writes

I have a Fuji 6 Megs which slips into my shirt pocket when we are
cruising

I guess I'm probably the only one that got a very unpleasant image from
that sentence...

--
regards andyw

The idea of a 75 yr old cruising between the public toilets of the IOW
is not that nice a thing to think about............lol
.................................................. ........
.................................................. ........



""""No doubt the regulars on this newsgroup/forum (urg/gardenbanter) will
manage
to add some rubbish to this posting. They usually do take every opportunity
to have a dig ............ the gardening connection :-)) ............ at me.
Although I must say it is the urg contributors who are the normal ones to
have a go.

You just watch :-))

Mike"""


..............................


Right again wasn't I?

:-)))))

They slink off with their tails between their legs, then pop up from time to
time :-))

Kindest regards

Mike

--

....................................

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

....................................

"Steerpike" wrote in message
...
On Oct 28, 2:07 pm, Jake Nospam@invalid wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:35:29 +0100, "Bill Grey"









wrote:

"Steerpike" wrote in message
...
On Oct 27, 11:34 pm, Martin wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:49:36 +0100, Paul Corfield

wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:03:52 +0100, Jake Nospam@invalid wrote:

Posting to thank all those who gave advice in response to my post a
while ago about acquiring a new digital camera.

I took my time (and a lot of time of a very helpful chap in one of
the
stores of a certain national chain) and ended up with a Canon
Powershot G12 (which I bought online). I thought that 342 with an
extra battery, case, SD card and mini tripod was a reasonable price
so
please don't tell me I could have got it cheaper!

Who did you buy from at that price?

A rioter?

Looks like you've got a good
deal.

--

Martin

If money is an issue but you are interested in high quality results
you would have been far better of with a used DSLR, rather than a G12.
These cameras are just fine for anyone with limited photographic
ambitions, but the fact that you cannot change the lens, means they
are far from ideal for more serious photography.

Rubbish.

Jake never said he was interested in "Serious Photography", anyway the
Canon G sereis are particularly fine cameras.

As for "anyone with limited photographic ambitions" - you do realise that
these cameras are very sophisticated with excellent lenses.

I have a Canon 5D Mkll DSLR and a G11. I prefer the G11 for any macro
plat
shots I take.

That puts your arguement in perstective.

Bill

The issue isn't money but "value for money". Having compared the Canon
with Lumix, Nikon and Fuji cameras, the Canon won it in my view (the
guy in the shop seemed to be edging me in that direction as well even
though he knew I wouldn't be buying that day). It'll suit my purpose
which is fun photography rather than "serious".

I gave up trying to follow the manual on screen so printed it out.
Close on an inch (2-sided printing). As I said, something to read
through the winter

Cheers, Jake
================================================== ===========
URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about
the same moisture-wise as the more wet end.

The cat's web site is at pillie.me.uk.

I think if you had actually seen first hand how much better the
results are that you would get from a DSLR, then I dont think its
likely you would have taken the ridiculous sales blurb of the person
who put the G12 into you seriously!

Sure get a cheap point and shot to carry with you, but for anything
very vaguely serious a DSLR is going to work a whole lot better in
pretty much every situation.
.................................................. .................
.................................................. .................

Something else you are an expert in Chris?

Other than being abusive and telling everybody what a load of rubbish they
are, is there anything you ARE an expert in?

Kindest possible regards

Mike
..
..
..
..

You watch folks at the tirade he comes back with :-))

If you want to see him have a go, mention 'Freemasons' :-))

--

....................................

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

....................................

On Oct 27, 7:03*pm, Jake Nospam@invalid wrote:
Posting to thank all those who gave advice in response to my post a
while ago about acquiring a new digital camera.

I took my time (and a lot of time of a very helpful chap in one of the
stores of a certain national chain) and ended up with a Canon
Powershot G12 (which I bought online). I thought that 342 with an
extra battery, case, SD card and mini tripod was a reasonable price so
please don't tell me I could have got it cheaper!

Now to immerse myself in the manual! I've taken a couple of photos
using all the auto settings and have managed to get a decently
detailed spider shot (spiders were what started the camera quest!)
among others. Something to keep me occupied through the winter months
and maybe I'll be able to match DaveH's plant parts shots next year.

So thanks again everyone for the advice.

Cheers, Jake
================================================== ===========
URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about
the same moisture-wise as the more wet end.

www.rivendell.org.uk

Jake
If you like the camera and get on with it OK then don't worry about
all the crap being writen about you having bought the wrong camera.
I like Fuju, why?
Because I'm used to them and they suit me.
There are loads of good cameras out there all with their loyal
followers who swear their make is the only one worth using.
What counts is the quality of the pictures you end up with, and a lot
of that is up to the person behind the camera.
I look foreward to seeing your pics, but why wait till next year?
David

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:38:08 +0100, stuart noble
wrote:



I'm still on 3.2 megapixels for the always with camera. Never really
felt the need, or seen it as a civic duty, to upgrade :-)

I remember reading not that many years ago that 5 megapixels was about
the same definition as "professional" "film" cameras (remember those?)
and there was no need to go any higher.

OTOH, I have a magazine somewhere from the latter half of the 80s
which maintained that 64K of memory and 120 megabytes of hard disk
capacity would be enough to see me through my lifetime of computing
needs!

I've taken (what I think are) better shots with the 3.5 megapixel
camera in my mobile phone than with a 10 megapixel camera that the G12
has now replaced. I think there's a lot more to life than megapixels.

Cheers, Jake
================================================== ===========
URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about
the same moisture-wise as the more wet end.

The cat's web site is at www.pillie.me.uk.

On 29/10/2011 13:04, Jake wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:38:08 +0100, stuart noble
wrote:



I'm still on 3.2 megapixels for the always with camera. Never really
felt the need, or seen it as a civic duty, to upgrade :-)

I remember reading not that many years ago that 5 megapixels was about
the same definition as "professional" "film" cameras (remember those?)
and there was no need to go any higher.

OTOH, I have a magazine somewhere from the latter half of the 80s
which maintained that 64K of memory and 120 megabytes of hard disk
capacity would be enough to see me through my lifetime of computing
needs!

It's the motorway principle. The more capacity the more traffic

I've taken (what I think are) better shots with the 3.5 megapixel
camera in my mobile phone than with a 10 megapixel camera that the G12
has now replaced. I think there's a lot more to life than megapixels.


I missed the annual starling visit yesterday. By the time I had one hand
on the camera they had stripped an elderberry tree and were on their way.

On Oct 29, 1:04*pm, Jake Nospam@invalid wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:38:08 +0100, stuart noble

wrote:

I'm still on 3.2 megapixels for the always with camera. Never really
felt the need, or seen it as a civic duty, to upgrade :-)

I remember reading not that many years ago that 5 megapixels was about
the same definition as "professional" "film" cameras (remember those?)
and there was no need to go any higher.

OTOH, I have a magazine somewhere from the latter half of the 80s
which maintained that 64K of memory and 120 megabytes of hard disk
capacity would be enough to see me through my lifetime of computing
needs!

I've taken (what I think are) better shots with the 3.5 megapixel
camera in my mobile phone than with a 10 megapixel camera that the G12
has now replaced. I think there's a lot more to life than megapixels.

Cheers, Jake
================================================== ===========
URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about
the same moisture-wise as the more wet end.

The cat's web site is atwww.pillie.me.uk.

The number of pixels is to a large extent a good sales gimmick, and in
general you would find that a 5 meg DSLR which is optically superior
to an 8 meg PAS, will produce much better pictures!

Seems strange that no one much seems to have grasped this, and also
seem unaware of the size that pics would be if printed at full
resolution.

But then again if you bought from one of the chains, you will have
certainly have had to listen to bullshit about a PAS with more pixels,
being superior to a DSLR with less..............

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 06:54:46 -0700 (PDT), Steerpike
wrote:



But then again if you bought from one of the chains, you will have
certainly have had to listen to bullshit about a PAS with more pixels,
being superior to a DSLR with less..............

I didn't and no, there wasn't any. I used a store merely to get hands
on comparison between cameras and the shop chap knew from the start
that I was over 100 miles from home with time to kill and wouldn't be
buying anything that day or, indeed, ever from that shop. Maybe he was
bored but whatever.

I discounted DSLR on the simple ground of bulk without any help from
the assistant (but having thought long and hard about comments made in
response to my post a while back).

I chose the camera I did simply because I preferred it to the others I
played with in the store, and all credit to the assistant for allowing
me loads of time to get touchy feely with the various cameras. And to
be fair he said something about megapixel count being one of the last
things I should think about.


Cheers, Jake
================================================== ===========
URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about
the same moisture-wise as the more wet end.

The cat's web site is at www.pillie.me.uk.

"Jake" Nospam@invalid wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 06:54:46 -0700 (PDT), Steerpike
wrote:



But then again if you bought from one of the chains, you will have
certainly have had to listen to bullshit about a PAS with more pixels,
being superior to a DSLR with less..............

I didn't and no, there wasn't any. I used a store merely to get hands
on comparison between cameras and the shop chap knew from the start
that I was over 100 miles from home with time to kill and wouldn't be
buying anything that day or, indeed, ever from that shop. Maybe he was
bored but whatever.

I discounted DSLR on the simple ground of bulk without any help from
the assistant (but having thought long and hard about comments made in
response to my post a while back).

I chose the camera I did simply because I preferred it to the others I
played with in the store, and all credit to the assistant for allowing
me loads of time to get touchy feely with the various cameras. And to
be fair he said something about megapixel count being one of the last
things I should think about.


Cheers, Jake
================================================== ===========
URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about
the same moisture-wise as the more wet end.

The cat's web site is at www.pillie.me.uk.

Jake, don't try and argue with Chris. He is a mental case and will have the
last word. Just let him get on with it. He is an expert in everything except
giving praise to anybody because he knows best.

If you want to wind him up, mention Freemasonry.

Now watch him come back and have a go at me.

He's a sad case.

Mike


--

....................................

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

....................................

"Jake" Nospam@invalid wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:38:08 +0100, stuart noble
wrote:
I've taken (what I think are) better shots with the 3.5 megapixel
camera in my mobile phone than with a 10 megapixel camera that the G12
has now replaced. I think there's a lot more to life than megapixels.


Canon reduced the megapixel count from the G10 to 10mpxl on the G11 to
improve the noise when using high ISO ratings.

You are right when you say there is more to life than megapixels.

Bill

On Oct 29, 3:32*pm, Jake Nospam@invalid wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 06:54:46 -0700 (PDT), Steerpike

wrote:

But then again if you bought from one of the chains, you will have
certainly have had to listen to bullshit about a PAS with more pixels,
being superior to a DSLR with less..............

I didn't and no, there wasn't any. I used a store merely to get hands
on comparison between cameras and the shop chap knew from the start
that I was over 100 miles from home with time to kill and wouldn't be
buying anything that day or, indeed, ever from that shop. Maybe he was
bored but whatever.

I discounted DSLR on the simple ground of bulk without any help from
the assistant (but having thought long and hard about comments made in
response to my post a while back).

I chose the camera I did simply because I preferred it to the others I
played with in the store, and all credit to the assistant for allowing
me loads of time to get touchy feely with the various cameras. And to
be fair he said something about megapixel count being one of the last
things I should think about.

Cheers, Jake
================================================== ===========
URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about
the same moisture-wise as the more wet end.

The cat's web site is atwww.pillie.me.uk.

Thats good to hear! An awful lot of people actually believe BS about
pixel count, which is in reality complete nonsense.

On 29/10/2011 13:04, Jake wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:38:08 +0100, stuart noble
wrote:



I'm still on 3.2 megapixels for the always with camera. Never really
felt the need, or seen it as a civic duty, to upgrade :-)

I remember reading not that many years ago that 5 megapixels was about
the same definition as "professional" "film" cameras (remember those?)
and there was no need to go any higher.

OTOH, I have a magazine somewhere from the latter half of the 80s
which maintained that 64K of memory and 120 megabytes of hard disk
capacity would be enough to see me through my lifetime of computing
needs!

In the early 80's you would be able to read in magazines that 640k of
ram in a computer was enough for any conceivable application too.

BTW The magazine was wrong at the time. Depending on the ASA rating of
the film a 35mm slide would hold between 24Mpixels and 12Mpixels of data
and some slower B&W films were better still. Professional photographers
also tend to use 6x7cm as a minimum and half plate negatives for stuff
which would be enlarged to poster sizes.

Kodaks professional PCD film scanning base*16 gave 6Mpixels (amateur)
and base*64 (pro) 12Mpixels - this captures most of the detail on most
film stocks (but not for ultra fine grain slow films used with the best
lenses).

I've taken (what I think are) better shots with the 3.5 megapixel
camera in my mobile phone than with a 10 megapixel camera that the G12
has now replaced. I think there's a lot more to life than megapixels.

Cheers, Jake

The digicam Mpixel race has become somewhat silly these days as
comparatively few zoom lenses are good enough to maintain detail
sufficient to match the latest generation of sensors.

It is an easy number for marketeers to sell hence the race, but once you
go beyond about 8Mpixels with run of the mill lenses the law of
diminishing returns sets in. It is a feature rather than a benefit.

Same with "sharpness" - a lot of P&S camera by default oversharpen their
images. This is because perceived sharpness in benchmarks and reviews
sells more cameras. You see haloes round edges as a result.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Oct 30, 11:34*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 29/10/2011 13:04, Jake wrote:









On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:38:08 +0100, stuart noble
*wrote:

I'm still on 3.2 megapixels for the always with camera. Never really
felt the need, or seen it as a civic duty, to upgrade :-)

I remember reading not that many years ago that 5 megapixels was about
the same definition as "professional" "film" cameras (remember those?)
and there was no need to go any higher.

OTOH, I have a magazine somewhere from the latter half of the 80s
which maintained that 64K of memory and 120 megabytes of hard disk
capacity would be enough to see me through my lifetime of computing
needs!

In the early 80's you would be able to read in magazines that 640k of
ram in a computer was enough for any conceivable application too.

BTW The magazine was wrong at the time. Depending on the ASA rating of
the film a 35mm slide would hold between 24Mpixels and 12Mpixels of data
and some slower B&W films were better still. Professional photographers
also tend to use 6x7cm as a minimum and half plate negatives for stuff
which would be enlarged to poster sizes.

Kodaks professional PCD film scanning base*16 gave 6Mpixels (amateur)
and base*64 (pro) 12Mpixels - this captures most of the detail on most
film stocks (but not for ultra fine grain slow films used with the best
lenses).



I've taken (what I think are) better shots with the 3.5 megapixel
camera in my mobile phone than with a 10 megapixel camera that the G12
has now replaced. I think there's a lot more to life than megapixels.

Cheers, Jake

The digicam Mpixel race has become somewhat silly these days as
comparatively few zoom lenses are good enough to maintain detail
sufficient to match the latest generation of sensors.

It is an easy number for marketeers to sell hence the race, but once you
go beyond about 8Mpixels with run of the mill lenses the law of
diminishing returns sets in. It is a feature rather than a benefit.

Same with "sharpness" - a lot of P&S camera by default oversharpen their
images. This is because perceived sharpness in benchmarks and reviews
sells more cameras. You see haloes round edges as a result.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Indeed............PAS camera's have plenty of silly "features" related
far more closely to marketing, than anything linked to providing good
pictures! This is something thats worth looking at quite closely by
anyone even vaguely interested in taking anything other than
snapshots.

On Oct 30, 11:38*am, Martin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 11:34:38 +0000, Martin Brown





wrote:
On 29/10/2011 13:04, Jake wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:38:08 +0100, stuart noble
*wrote:

I'm still on 3.2 megapixels for the always with camera. Never really
felt the need, or seen it as a civic duty, to upgrade :-)

I remember reading not that many years ago that 5 megapixels was about
the same definition as "professional" "film" cameras (remember those?)
and there was no need to go any higher.

OTOH, I have a magazine somewhere from the latter half of the 80s
which maintained that 64K of memory and 120 megabytes of hard disk
capacity would be enough to see me through my lifetime of computing
needs!

In the 1960s you were lucky if you had 32K bytes of RAM and 120 Kbytes
of disk capacity
--

Martin- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In the 60's if you had a home computer you must have been time
traveling

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 Dave Hill wrote:

I remember reading not that many years ago that 5 megapixels was about
the same definition as "professional" "film" cameras (remember those?)
and there was no need to go any higher.

OTOH, I have a magazine somewhere from the latter half of the 80s
which maintained that 64K of memory and 120 megabytes of hard disk
capacity would be enough to see me through my lifetime of computing
needs!

In the 1960s you were lucky if you had 32K bytes of RAM and 120 Kbytes
of disk capacity

In the 60's if you had a home computer you must have been time
traveling

Quite. I didn't see a desktop computer until 1979 when the school where
I was teaching bought the Commodore Pet. A couple of years later it was
a toss up as to whether I should get a Commodore Pet or a TRS-80. The
TRS-80 won because it was cheaper.

And it was supposed to be Bill Gates who said back in the 80s that he
didn't think anyone would need more than 64k of RAM. But maybe that's an
urban legend. I've got Bill Gates' book - I'll have to look it up,
though I'm not sure if all of it is to be believed. He claims to have
written the BASIC interpreter for all the desktop computers at that
time.

David

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK
http://rance.org.uk